Congress to White House: No deal!

House Republicans delivered a stunning defeat to their former hero, President Bush, in a House vote of 228 – 205 rejecting the $700 billion federal bailout. Stock markets plunged, the price of a barrel of oil dropped, world markets went ga-ga, and the Dow dropped nearly 800 points. Mayhem! A truly frantic and berserk-looking Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told reporters outside the White House that the administration is not giving up on a deal.

“We need it as soon as possible and we are committed to working with congressional leaders to get it done,” he said.

In the House, 133 Republicans joined 95 Democrats in opposing the bailout. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans. President Bush said he is “disappointed” but will keep pushing for a bailout.

“We put forth a plan that was big because we got a big problem,” the president groused.

Why is it that if I don’t pay my student loans or mortgage or car payment, the Federal Government will see to it that every license I ever thought I had or could get will be suspended until I get in compliance, but if a major corporation mismanages its finances, it gets a bailout?! This is sickening. What happened to true conservative ideologues? Our Government is bigger than ever and our personal liberties are more restricted than ever and there are actually those who are planning to vote for more of the same with John McCain. Incredible.

Strange days Julie. I wonder what they are trying to distract us from. My top five candidates include: War, Palin, Bad Inflation, Unemployment and certainly not least, Increasing executive powers setting the stage for a coup by right-wing religious fanatics who now control the military.

We are beginning to see a return to normal economics. There is a reason it is called ‘The Dismial Science’.

The price of oil dropped today and will likely keep dropping for a day or two. If this continues we might never get a ‘bailout’ for Wall Street. Who is going to vote for a bill that will cause higher oil prices?

Main Street, on the other hand, will enjoy lower gas prices.

What if there is no bailout? Intrests rates will rise like they did in the late 1970′s and times will get tough for the ineffecent businesses. Smart managers, however, will come out ot this with their businesses stronger than ever. Notice I said smart, not tough. There is a difference.

People ARE your most valuable business asset, so go easy on the layoffs.

It is somehow not surprising that McCain is blaming the Democrats for the bill not passing when 133 Republicans in the House — roughly 2/3 of the Republicans – opposed the bill and effectively killed it.

So McCain apparently has no friends in the House.

If this is the kind of leadership that McCain is going to provide as president, we probably should vote for Obama.

I respect the republicans and the democrats who did NOT vote for this. The pundits don’t understand that there actually was a bipartisan effort to DEFEAT this poorly thought out reaction of legislature. At least that’s the way I see it.

It’s 700 Billion dollars! Take some time to think it over. However, I do agree that the Speaker of the House blew the deal by being a nutcase. She’s not a deal maker. I hope the next democratic administration replaces her.

I agree that she was insulting. This is not the time to blame the obvious people who created this problem, it is the time to resolve this problem.

Hopefully, the dems will find another qualified woman to replace Pelosi. I ain’t holding my breath. Now, in the Senate I’m pulling for Miss Mary (D-LA) for the new leader.

The bailout/rescue financial package was billed as costing up to $700 Billion. The loss in total value on the stock market today was upwards of $1.1 Trillion. I guess the no votes in Congress showed em they are not taking anything from any sharpy Wall Street types. Oh and they showed us how stupid they really are when the chips are down. These jerks couldn’t row a dingy in a stright line. So much for the Republic for which it stands.

check this week’s barrons (which investment pro’s read) and you’ll see the plan was actually expected to turn a PROFIT for the taxpayer (its not a bailout—we’re buying assets w/ residual value on the cheapest financing around: the us treasury).

call a spade a spade: the GOP cost the US big time today, and its not over yet. this could be the beginning of another depression…bernanke & paulson get it, but those ideologues in the house who voted against it think they know more than paulson and the world’s leading authority on the great depression (bernanke)? please!

If a “good bill,” is what you’re looking for, then why not start with one that is both intellectually honest and actually accomplishes the stated goal of halting a market meltdown. However, instead of giving the money to the same knuckle heads at the top who got themselves and consequently us into this mess, why not give it to the knuckle heads at the bottom who got themselves and consequently us into this mess? By that I mean, why not spend the money paying off the debts of those affected by predatory mortgage practices and high debt?

Just pass a bill that allows the government to pay the bad debts of individuals off and gives them free and clear title to their homes. The loan companies will be paid in full, and then they’ll have the ability to extend home equity loans to the same idiots who just got out of debt. Billions will be put right back into the market and pre-existing and new home sales will go through the roof again! Let’s face it, the people who got into the bad mortages are spenders,, not savers. If their debts are somehow “magically” erased, they’ll just spend again. Those of us who didn’t get into bad mortgages will get “screwed” but hey, we’re getting screwed anyway so what’s the big deal?

Last time I looked, every citizen, including the Speaker of the House, is entitled to speak freely. It is pretty ludicrous to think that a House member would change their vote at the last minute based on Pelosi expressing her opinion. That would be putting personal anger ahead of the country, a circumstance far worse than being impolitic.

Perhaps I just don’t understand this bill and I don’t invest in anything I don’t understand.

Can anyone tell me how spending this 700 for worthless securities is going to help? I see a lot of inflation in the near future if we inject this money into the system for assets that are worthless.

If we were buying ‘real’ assets it would be one thing, but to buy what are nothing more than junk bonds and hoping they will someday be worth something… Sounds like we are buying a modern art masterpiece that might or might not be a true work of art.

By the way, I do not consider myself a conservative when it comes to money. You got to spend it to make it, you know. But I am against just tossing it away.

The worst investments are when the salesman says you have to act today. We have to take the time to do this right as we will not have the time to do it over.

“However, I do agree that the Speaker of the House blew the deal by being a nutcase. She’s not a deal maker. I hope the next democratic administration replaces her.”

Nancy decided that when it was time to step up to the plate and be a leader, her Democrat instincts kicked in instead and she decide to flip the bird to the Republicans with that great bipartisan speech. That’s what happens when your whole political leadership strategy is based on vengeance. No wonder she has lead the current congress to a lowest ever 9% approval rating.

She is a good reason why the majority of the American taxpayer rejects the bailout. Nancy and her Democrat majority have provided cover for the looting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now we are expected to believe that they have the taxpayers best interest in crafting the bailout and the “oversight”. There were plenty of warning signs for the last several years. But its too hard to pass up all the contributions flowing from these institutions who wanted no oversight.

Show me Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, etc. returning their salary and bonus money, then we will talk. They obviously did nothing to earn that money. Lets see if the media treats their “management” like they did the Enron story.

Once they can find a way to poo-poo Obama’s relationship with Raines and somehow tie it to Bush or any other prominent Republican, then they’ll treat it like Enron. Until then, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Pelosi is obviously a born leader. Oh, and she’s above partisan politics to boot. It wasn’t just her stupid partisan rant prior to the vote. After the vote (which she brought to the floor knowing it wouldn’t pass), she & her cohorts got in front of the cameras and took partisan shots at the Republicans. They also made a bunch of stupid jokes which their friends with the cameras, microphones & pads of paper curiously found gut-busting funny.

Here are some more thoughts: I have a small business with about 12 people working for me. One thing I really hate is paying for business insurance for years, then having those Tards choose any of their multiple, self-serving technicalities to refuse payment when my office is still closed due to damage from the hurricane. The House Republican plan for this bailout included giving most of the money to the insurance industry, which of course is actually the same people(interlocking boards among financial corporations don’t you know) who got us into this mess in the first place. It was nothing but a shell game to benefit the rich. It is interesting that it was the liberals and conservatives who had the guts to shoot this thing down. Jim Hightower was right when he said that the only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead Armadillos.

Lets do a little math here, the Republicans voted against the bill ( even though they agreed to support it ) in order to save the taxpayers $700 Billion…..so the market tanks, loses 7% and our collective equity goes down by 1 Trillion…..so the self serving Republicans cost us $300 Billion…..for grins lets say that on Tuesday the market tanks again but not as badly, say our collective equity goes down by $500 Billion, by now the Republican self serving posturing has cost us $1.5 Trillion and that’s before the eventual approval of the bailout and the $700 Billion bill for that. When you add it all up, the grandstanding of Ted Poe, Darrel Issa and Eric Cantor cost us all a Trillion plus. Its not a perfect bill, it may be a crap sandwich, but this isn’t getting any better by itself and the longer we sit and wring our hands the worse it gets. Unbelievable.

Craig I probably cannot not row a dingy in a stright line but I can row a dinghy in a straight line oh and and as an aside will pouring 700 trillion of new taxpayer debt into a leaky bucket staunch the flow or just act as a watering can for a few sick plants?

rhyno wrote: “check this week’s barrons (which investment pro’s read) and you’ll see the plan was actually expected to turn a PROFIT for the taxpayer (its not a bailout—we’re buying assets w/ residual value on the cheapest financing around: the us treasury).”

So in other words, the government should start insuring 401ks and IRAs against losses like the FDIC? The government’s place is to assure that all investments turn a profit? That’s inane. And it’s a bailout.

glenn wrote: “No wonder she has lead the current congress to a lowest ever 9% approval rating.”

Keep in mind that when you drill down the numbers, the democrats in congress still have a higher approval rating than the Republicans in congress. As for your suggestion that Pelosi’s bland comments triggered the nay votes : get real. If revenge is the motivating factor for casting a vote for Republicans in the house, those constituents need to vote their congressmen out.

In general, you’re describing a bottom-up approach to this issue. I have no problem with that, I’m a librul Dem after all.

Any bailout package will need that component in it. But, any bailout package will also need to have a component that eases the credit crunch. I’ve been reading a ton of various ideas on this, the “Swedish Model” being one that looks the most appealing.

Any bailout package had damn well include effective oversight and regulation. I think this meltdown should but the final nail in the deregulatory Reaganomics coffin.

Matt…..Its a testament to how fortunate we are to live in this country with its abundance of opportunity, perhaps a testament to the economy, certainly not a testament to the policies and policymakers who cost us that Trillion.

I can attest personally that being Horatio Alger is a good thing, despite that still not thrilled at the massive hit from yesterday.

Nancy Pelosi couldn’t even get her own party on board, talk about a failed leader.

Posted by: Allison at September 30, 2008 09:22 AM

Hmmm……If Pelosi delivering 60% of the Democrats makes her a failed leader, what do you call Boehner delivering 33% of the Republicans? An Extremely Failed Leader? A Total Failure as a Leader? A Complete Lack of Leadership from Boehner?

“Nancy decided that when it was time to step up to the plate and be a leader, her Democrat instincts kicked in instead and she decide to flip the bird to the Republicans with that great bipartisan speech.”

glenn, I totally agree with you.

If that’s the way she is in front of the cameras you can only imagine what a b—- she is in the back rooms.

My prediction is that nothing will get done before the election. And I look forward to Joe Biden and Tina Fey’s debate. Did you know that Alaska is 200 times the size of Delaware? That makes her more qualified.

Not what I said… you’re just cutting and pasting your Democrat talking points. What I said was that when the chips are down, when the entire world is watching, when the fate of the Republic is resting on Nancy Pelosi’s shoulder on getting a vote passed, she instead decided to throw a big turd in the punch bowl.

This was a vote that was destined to fail from the get-go. She couldn’t even get a majority of her California congregation to vote for it. The fix was in. She needed something to blame on the Republicans so no one goes looking into the culpability of Democrats in blocking reform attempts for the last several years. Don’t want anyone looking into how much Fannie and Freddy money got laundered into Democrat campaign coffers either. Might start looking like they were a piggy-bank for the politically well connected.

Glenn, if you’re going to go on and on about Pelosi’s statement and link the bill’s failure to her, the suggestion is that you think the failure was her fault. I don’t need to cut and paste anything to make that point. Why dn’t you at least offer an honest acknowledgement to the Republican nay votes that helped kill the bill on Monday?

As for your focus on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, you don’t seem concerned about the money that Freddie mac has poured into McCain’s campaign, or McCain’s campaign manager’s involvement as a lobbyist on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Guess it’s not convenient.

“Glenn, if you’re going to go on and on about Pelosi’s statement and link the bill’s failure to her, the suggestion is that you think the failure was her fault.”

Who is the Speaker of the House? Who was going to bring a new tone to Washington? Who said this HAD to be passed?

” I don’t need to cut and paste anything to make that point.”

You have not made a coherent point yet, care to try again?

“Why dn’t you at least offer an honest acknowledgement to the Republican nay votes that helped kill the bill on Monday?”

The majority of the American taxpayers were against this bill. Thankfully the Republicans killed the bill on Monday. Seems they are the only ones who actually listen to their constituents. Care to tell me where in the U.S. Constitution this Congress has the authority to do what they were trying to do?

“As for your focus on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, you don’t seem concerned about the money that Freddie mac has poured into McCain’s campaign, or McCain’s campaign manager’s involvement as a lobbyist on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Guess it’s not convenient.”

I have seen legislation from John McCain that tried to toughen the oversight on Freddie and Fannie, have you? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer, Barack Oboma, etc. supported this legislation, didn’t they? Or did they put their heads in the sand ignoring the warning signs and attack anyone who proposed such legislation. Were they rewarded with the largest bribes… err, campaign contributions to run cover for Fannie and Freddie? Coincidence? How convenient.

“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

Polls I’ve seen show that the majority of voters favor the bailout bill. Exactly which polls are you looking at?

As to the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae reform legislation of McCain’s, if you’re referring to McCain’s failed legislation from 2005 that didn’t make it out of committee (in a Republican controlled Senate), yes, I’ve read it.

How am I supposed to be impressed with McCain and his lip service on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when he keeps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac people on his campaign staff?

Am I supposed to be impressed that McCain has taken less contribution money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than Obama? Or am I supposed to be impressed that McCain can’t get Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae reform legislation out of committee in a Republican controlled Senate?

As for your comment that Republicans are the only ones who listen to their constituents — apparently they’ve stopped listening.

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

As long as lending institutions are forced to accomodate ‘high risk’ lending programs-forced upon them by our Federal Government via the “Carter era Re-investment Act” and Clinton Administration-it really does not matter if the “bailout” is 10 trillion, the result in the future will be exactly the same.

I agree, both parties and Wall Street have profited exponentially over the decades from these enactments from the desire to provide low income and minorities with loan programs for home ownership, but the unintended result IS the reason we are in the mess we are in.

We have ignored the reasons we are spending 700 billion in the first place. It will happen again as long as ‘high risk’ programs are in place and forced upon our institutions.